Those would probably be the only lenses I would actually need. (Update: that was lie, except for a few types of events. I need a lot more lenses than that to cover everything I do.) If a new 135m f/1.8 L comes out, I would go with that. Right now I might actually lean towards the Sigma for the second lens. Of course, the 400mm f/2.8 II would be nice along side #3, but really folks, if I am hunting around through the woods for miles, I am going to regret not choosing the DO lens.

I would long to add a fourth lens, the 200mm f/2.0, but I definitely need the first two lenses on the list, and I need a long lens, so if I had just three, the precious 200mm would have to go. Bummer.

The moral of the story is that three lenses are not enough.

My personal comment is that I find those prime lenses to be much more versatile than zooms. Please take a deep breath and try the 24mm rather than the 16-35mm, for example. It will make you into a better photographer. The same for the 85mm rather than the 24-70mm. I never use my 24-70mm lens. One camera with the 24mm and one with the 85mm blows away any competitors who are standing there with wimpy 24-70mm lenses. No client or photo editor would choose their pictures after they had seen mine. Trust me.

As far as the 50mm classic lens, that is just what someone would need if they had one lens. Don't be superstitious. (This comment wasn't aimed at the poster who just posted a 50mm on their list. I was writing my post at the same time. I am just saying that if I put the 50mm onto my list, it will just push out a lens that would do a better specific job. So there is no reason to include it.)

This, to me, is like asking an auto mechanic which three wrenches he would choose if he could only have three. He'd end up with three adjustable wrenches and screw up or miss a lot of jobs.

I guess I just don't like thinking in terms of limitations if I don't have to.

Well, as a cyclist I can tell you that I don't tow my toolbox behind me, but there are a few essentials that I stick in my saddle pack or jersey pocket. Likewise in "terms of limitations" most people have a limited budget, and often limited space or inclination to carry around a dozen leses. So I find it to be a perfectly reasonable question.

This, to me, is like asking an auto mechanic which three wrenches he would choose if he could only have three. He'd end up with three adjustable wrenches and screw up or miss a lot of jobs.

I guess I just don't like thinking in terms of limitations if I don't have to.

Well, as a cyclist I can tell you that I don't tow my toolbox behind me, but there are a few essentials that I stick in my saddle pack or jersey pocket. Likewise in "terms of limitations" most people have a limited budget, and often limited space or inclination to carry around a dozen leses. So I find it to be a perfectly reasonable question.

16-35 L II (I own the 17-40 L)24-70 Tamron (I own the 24-105 L)70-200 F4 L which I already own

The reason I take the F$ is sharpness and weight. The Tamron because it has IS and is lighter. The biggest upgrade I want is to sell my IR converted 20D, convert my 5D to IR, and then get the new 6D that is rumored to be coming for higher resolution color.

IR has been an artistic dream for me and one I would suggest to anyone.

The new 24-70 mkii L hopefully with ISThe 70-200 mkii L IS (already have this and wouldn't be without it)The 200-400 L IS with built in 1x4 converter.

All Canon I know, I have not really tried a lens from another brand as I'm happy with Canon. I picked these as I believe it will give a full range of options from 24mm-560mm, mainly as I can't seem to pick any one special area I just love to photograph anything.